OFFICE OF THEATTORNEYGENERAL OFTEXAS

AUSTIN

Xonorablo Julian Xontgoarmy State 

### ElghaapEn&err Austin, Tear

Dear sir:

opinion NO. o

### StateElghvmy 1po.427, Aots our attention rider to Coca in.f~expense8 or ths SiOn8.Oi Sellat 

### Bill lature, directing a provislona OSthe to trove11llg. exgmses

, and, 

### therofora,.

tbat the vorned by tke primisio~

hall e&eat a State Hlghxay Eno shall bea oongotezt cloil

struotlon andmlntananfa, Whoahall hold hip position until rczmmd by tka Cooloi8ElOIl. Es s!xdl rirst execute a bendpayable to the State fn sxoh ~SXZI as the Cotmisdon my dearsneoassary, to be upproved by the Cowxission, and ooaaitionen upoa the faithful psrr022- tXlO8 ot his dutlos. Eeshall aot with the Coazn$rsionin anadvisory aapeoity,Bonorablo Julian Xontgomery, Fagr 8

wlthout votes nodshall quarterly, annually, andb,lennally 8,Abir.i.t o it detailed reports of the progreos of pub110 roadoonstruotlon and statcat of expenditures. Be thall be allowed all travell~ ex9enees end other expenses therefOr, under the dlreOtiOn OS the depsrtmnt, while aboent from Austin In ths perforr=anoe of duty under thedimotion or the Coznl6sI0n.~ In 1931, the followI= Aot warpassed: Vhe traveling andother necessary expenses lacurred by the various offIoer6, assistants, deputies, olerks andother SEployees in tho vorioua' de9artnents, InstIe tutlons, board& oomIsoIons or other oubdivisionsoithe State Government,In the aotive dieofiargeof their dutlen shall be 

### suchas are speoifloally fixed endappropriated by tho Le5islstu.m In the general approprlatlone bill provIClng for the expensee of the ttl;te CXfvcrment fromyem to year. iThenappropriations for travel1~ expeensss

are mde axky

allamxes or payr,ents to offiolals or ec9loyees ror the use or privately omed autoaobllea shall be on e baeis of actual nIleaSe traveled for eaoh trip or all trips oovered bythe expense aooounts aubtittcd ror papnant or allcmmoe fro% su‘chap;roprlatlone, and suoh paycent or cllcmnce shall be madeat a rate not to exceed five ('54 omts for each nlle actuelly traveled, and no additional er9enre incident to the operation of elch automobile shall be ello~mQ.* (Aots1931, Portyeeoond La@lature, p. 372, Chnpter218, seotion 1, oodified byVernon's a8Arti018 01323,in Varnon*.sSuppleclontto the Revised Civil Statutes of $925.) The rid& aapmbad to Senate Sill No. 427, passed by the Forty-sixth Ls~slaturs, oontoins various provision8 operatingas limitations on the uee of funds ap?rogriated for traveling expense8, It 18not necessary for the ?urpoms of thie opinion to r6vfe?t t&We lldtEitlOnS, save In the respeots noted below.Honorable Julian Montgoosry, PageS

Seotlon (41, or that portion of the rider relating to trnvallng 4rpens44 pro~Id4s 88 r0il~at

*Exoept a0 otkwlse ~p90iri05lly etmptad, the proolnlona of thlu Act shall also apply to dqmrtzient haids and **menbrrs**of CO~EIIS~IO~II.”

Th4r9 is ao exemption of the State HighwayEngineer anywhereto be found In the Appropriations Bill. 24think it clear that the laglslatlve Intent is EfdfeStedthat the provlsione of,~therider relative to traveling bxpenaea ehall apply not only to Wats e~9loyees, but also to Stat4 ofrIobr8. That thla wasao Intended by the Legislature Is aiad6clear bythe faot thet It found It neoeasary to 8peOlfIoally exempt from the provisions of the Act relative to traveling expense8 tso of the ohiaf *ofrIcera~ of this State, to-wit, ths Governor andthe Lieutenant Governor, in sootion. (g) of ths rider relating to trav4Ung ergensoas RIt is expreeoly provided that the

provlslons of this **Aot,** with referenoe to traveling expenses, shall not apply to the Governor andthe Lieutenant Governor of this State,* The a990Iric oxmptioa 0s these two0rrIcera cf our State Covermeat lndloates clearly that It V.BS the legialettive belief that, unless such speoltio exezptlon wasmde, the Governor andthe Lieutenant Govmnor, In incurring traveling ex94z1aes,would be **limited** by the provisions of the rider relative thereto.

To hold otherwIse wuld ‘be tc say that the La&sleturs Intended that the embers of the zlehway Comleslon, while traveling on business of the State, should,be linited to $4.00 par dayfor rneels andlod@&j, but that their subordinate officer, the State fiighwayXnglneer, While travelI- at the expense of the State on State business, should not be linited to $4.00 per day; that the heed of the.httommy General*8 Departcmnt, the Attorney General, should, while traveling at the expense of the State on State busfneas, b4 lImIted to $4.00 **per** dayfor Eeale endlodeInS, but that hI4 subordinate offloer, the First AssistEiXt Attorney General, should not be limIted to $4.00 per day; that the head of the Departmentof St&o, the Seoretary of State, While tB3Velw Et the 4Xp6lWO Or the Stat.4 011Stat4 business should be limited to #4.00 per dayfor meals and lodging, but that hIr subordinate offio4r, the Asalstant.

Honorable Julian Xoatgon;ery, Pago.4

Seoretarp of State, should not be (10limited. Yiedo not balleos t!mt this was intended by the Le&slaturs, and, therefore, our Opinion No. q-1626 is afflmed.

fn the nemorandumof authorities attached to your letter, you ham miaoonatrued Opinion No. o-1426, in ona respoot, whemin you etate that Opinion No. 0-1420 reoognlzes that the State Kighwsy-i?lnaar would heve a volld claim against ths State of Texas for traveling expenses aotually incurred in exoese of $4.00 per day. Opinion No. O-1428dcee not so reoognlza or imply, for Artlole 6823, Vernon’s Supplamnt to the Revloed Cloil Statutes of 1925, preoentn the reoogaition ot nny **aiah** prl?nolple.

Pourr rely truly AlTORiN?ZY

OEXXRAL

OF TEXAS